Michigan Votes Forum

I testified at the Senate committee on HB4323. It went very well, and i want to commend the committee, and especially 2 individuals. Chairman Birkholz did a superb job, and Senator Basham made the best statement of the meeting. After listening to an opponent of the bill trash the bill with irrational forecasts resulting from this restoration of our rights , Senator Basham said that this person's testimony reminded him of the testimony about concealed carry. He said that the forecast of terrible things happening did not happen, and the same thing will probably be true of this bill.

i think the same people who are misusing our trails & roads now will be misusing the roads & trails under this new deal only problem is that the misuse will be more wide spread & visable to non atv ers & people who live in these counties COULD WE BE SHOOTING OURSELVES IN THE FOOT????

they are already abusing the trails. they will continue to abuse the trails despite this law, or if they were no law at all. in the mean time, law abiding citizens will have their rights back. that may mean more trail riders to see them and stop them.

Being "given back" by this legislation. What you do have is a proposal to extend special privilege to run on county roads to the elite 3% of the population who can afford and chooses to own and operate expensive off-road vehicles. Knowledgeable resource managers say that 90% of recreational ORV users violate the law, or rules or regulations governing their activity every time they ride. That kind of behavior will be more visible to and have more of an effect on the general public if this bill passes. It is, indeed, very likely that the ORV crowd will have shot itself in the foot if this becomes law. The great clamor for passage of this bill arises from the argument that ORV riders supposedly want to be able to ride on the roadways in order to connect existing trails into longer rides, and in order to use their machines to access services, such as fuel stations, restaurants, bars, campgrounds, repair shops, motels, etc. The thing is, ORV riders already have full and open access to all these things, but like some places where dog lovers may not bring their dogs, ORV enthusiasts are not permitted to ride their expensive toys to get there. Ironically, also, the current DNR management plan for ORVs proposes the establishment of such routes, although in a more controlled and manageable way. The ORV community's insistence on this bill as preferred over the DNR proposal tells us that what really is sought is a much wider, playground to be provided by county roads in northern Michigan. It is well documented and recognized that where recreational ORVs go they bring noise, pollution, torn up ground, and problems with illegal use, trespass, litter, vandalism and social conflict. This bill would create a broad, wide open playground in northern Michigan across which these negative impacts would be spread. This is bad legislation that neglects the interests of the many while serving the convenience of the elite few who own and operate ORVs. It should be rejected by the Senate.

right to drive your ORV on the side of a road that you pay for in taxes? why can YOU drive YOUR snowmobile on that same road?

Are not the same thing, according to Michigan law. Equating ORVs to snowmobiles in trying to make a case for this unwise bill is illogical and has no factual basis. There never has been any "right" to drive off-road vehicles on Michigan roads. That is the way it should be in respect to vehicles designed specifically for off-road travel. It is significant that even associations that represent ORV manufacturers oppose HB 4323. Clearly, those manufacturers thoroughly understand the nature and capabilities of the vehicles they build, and where they may be operated safely. Public roads clearly is not one of those places, according to the people who best know the machines. What is being sought here is a special privilege for the elite 3% minority of people who can afford and opt to own and operate ORVs for their recreation. It ignores the rights and interests of the vast majority of citizens the general public. This is bad legislation that should be rejected by the Michigan Senate.

three percent that can afford to ride snowmobiles CAN ride on the road, but the ELITE three percent that can afford to ride ORV's CANNOT. how elitist...

to never see an ATV on the shoulder. "There never has been any "right" to drive off-road vehicles on Michigan roads." Go find a life.

it's called RIGHT OF WAY. just like the RIGHT you have to drive your car or your snowmobile on the road.

First of all, please source your 90% statement. I think that is a made up number. I also think you 3% number of ORV users needs to be sourced, again, I think another made up number. I have a cabin 300 yards from an ORV trail, yet, because of this mundane law, I have to load up a trailer to go less than a quarter mile to the trail. Plus, If I plate my "enduro" I can ride anywhere I want on the roads or trails. What sense does that make. If people have a straight shot to the trails, they will use it. Others will find back ways and trespass to get to the trails. This is nothing more than a money maker for the DNR and forest service. If they wanted to eliminate riding to the trails, it would be a $1000 fine instead of $160. I pay for bike paths I don't use, I pay for parks I don't use I pay for maintenance of the land so I am just as entitled as you. Your one of those people who, as long as it benefits your narrow ideological views your ok with it, to heck with anyone else.

I was one of those that testified in high favor of HB 4323 on the 16th. I found it very amusing that ONE person was sent to represent the voices of the Mich State Police, MDOT, DEQ,DNR, Road Commission and the likings.This itself indicates how WEAK you guys are with your NO opinions. GROUCHY, We SLAMED your non favoring ass here. The testimony from the two Sheriff officers IN favor of HB 4323 was very powerful stuff. They've had this ordinance for about 4 years now and testified that it has had nothing but POSITIVE impacts for their communities. I testified that we have 19 counities in place using a similier ordinance for years now, and at the end of every year, each county has the authority to recind the ordinance if it is not working.And not ONE county has EVER recinded this priveledge.That in itself was POWERFUL proof that HB 4323 can and does work. Grouchy, your losing worse than any politician in the USA history----go take a perminate NAP. We dont beleive a word of what you say and we dont care to read your BS anymore. We will PREVAIL in the end! Bill Gilbert--DIRECTOR Mich ORV Safety Assoc- M.O.R.A

All dems libs and socialists. Excellent "Your one of those people who, as long as it benefits your narrow ideological views your ok with it, to heck with anyone else"

An ORV fan posts: >I pay for bike paths I don't use, I pay for parks I don't use I pay for maintenance of the land so I am just as entitled as you. Your one of those people who, as long as it benefits your narrow ideological views your ok with it, to heck with anyone else.< No sale. I also pay for a lot of stuff that does me no good personally, including the 3,100 miles of DNR maintained ORV trails in Michigan that are there for your enjoyment. So, by the way, I am just as “entitled” as you are. But I don’t complain and whine about it, and use that fact to argue for special privileges for myself, like you do. The other difference between us is that I can tolerate and even appreciate different preferences in recreational activities, including running ORVs, and have said so right out in front. You apparently can’t tolerate the idea that some folks find their recreation in quiet and peaceful surroundings where the ground isn’t all torn up. You question the comment that knowledgeable public land management people say 90% of recreational ORV operators violate the law, or rules or regulation that are supposed to govern their activity every time they ride. Your “questioning” amounts to denial. But then you deliver the threat that ORV riders “will find back ways and trespass to get to the trails” if this bill does not pass. In short, you openly admit and acknowledge that violating the law and everyday standards of civil behavior is very much a part of the ORV “culture.” That is exactly why this is bad legislation. It is well documented that where recreational ORVs run they bring noise, pollution, torn up ground, and problems with illegal use, trespass, litter, vandalism and social conflict. These are heavy impacts. ORVs are extremely intrusive and obtrusive machines when operated for recreation. That is their nature. It is recognized by the DNR, the State of Michigan, and by ordinary folks like myself that recreational use of ORVs is a legitimate pastime for the 3% of the population that can afford and chooses to own and operate them. These folks should have places to play in Michigan, and they do: numerous scramble areas and 3,100 miles of DNR-maintained trails throughout the state. But a high-impact activity like ORV recreation requires careful management, lest it overwhelm the landscape and leave no real opportunity for others – the vast majority of folks who like to get out-of-doors -- to enjoy recreational pursuits that place value on quiet, slower paced, less disruptive and less destructive pursuits. The DNR’s well-conceived management approach has been to confine ORV impacts to areas given over to that activity. The agency’s latest management plan recognizes ORV fans’ desire for expanding the ORV trail and designated connector system to provide them with enhanced ORV-mounted access to longer sustained rides and campgrounds, and to commercial services like restaurants, bars, fuel stations and motels. The DNR plan proposes to provide what fans say they want through HB 4323, but in a more carefully structured way, to protect all interests. Lack of support for the DNR plan and applause for HB 4323 by ORV fans in this forum tells us that what ORV fans want is not connectors between trailheads and access to services but a vastly expanded northern Michigan playground to romp across with the consequent heavy impacts and intrusions. That completely flies in the face of looking out for the interests of the vast majority of Michigan residents and recreationists who do not own and operate ORVs. HB 4323 proposes to directly expose vast tracts of both public and private land in northern Michigan to uncontrolled, uninvited, illegal ORV use and damage. This is not Henny Penny hysteria and speculation, it is a prediction based on historical fact. HB 4323 is bad legislation that should be rejected by the Michigan Senate.

All I Can Hear Is Blah Blah Blah Get back in your rocking chair and keep singing kumbaya. In a perfect world they would put an oil derrick on your neighbors property so we could have cheaper gas to run our ORV's on. Have a great day.

You Say.."but a vastly expanded northern Michigan playground to romp across with the consequent heavy impacts and intrusions." All they want is to be able to run on the shoulder right next to the road that has loud harleys, semi trucks etc. You are just a control freak that gets upset when someone is enjoying themselves and having fun. My guess is that fun left your lifestyle loong ago and your are bitter. You are part of the same mob that wants to outlaw drinking beer, smoking and other things that good hard working folks do to relax.

You accuse me of making threats and being in denial. You are reading what you want to read. If you make a statement that 90% of people violate the law, you should back it up with a source. I don't break the law and follow the rules, however, you have chosen to use an arbritary number of 90% to justify your position. Questioning where you got your number is not denial, it is the search for the truth. Secondly, my point that people will find a way to the trail was not to imply that we would all violate the law and it is not a threat. My point was that those who break the law will always break it and the punishment when they get caught should be severe. You also make the assumption that I propose that all trails should be available. That is not the case. I am merely asking for a reasonable solution for residents and property owners to have a pathway to the trails and gas stations without having to load a trailer to do so. You also fail to address the issue that an individual can have an orv that is street legal and ride it anywhere they want regardless of the passage of this bill. How does that make sense. There should be a limit to the uses of a bike regardless of whether it is plated or not on forest trails. Law abiding citizens should not be penalized and law breakers should be punished severly. But it is apparent that your opinion is the only one that counts. So we should bow down to your greatness and let you make all the decisions.

What the proponents of the bill say they are seeking—access to fuel, food, and small businesses, and connections between trails— for ATV riders using Michigan's trail system could be attained through county-designated "access routes" permitted under the current law. In fact, the DNR has proposed development of such connectors in its current ORV management plan. HB 4323 would go further and unnecessarily open up virtually all county roads to ATV traffic. The bill would allow riding for any purpose and in areas of counties not close to trails. In short, it calls for creating a vast open playground for ORVs across northern Michigan, inviting widespread problems with illegal use on public lands, trespass on private property, litter, vandalism, environmental damage and social conflict. The problems are well documented. Public land managers almost universally rate abusive ORV operation as one of the most vexing problems they face. There is no good rationale for exposing vastly more territory to the problems that run with ORVs. But there is every good reason to take a more measured approach to satisfying access requests by ORV enthusiasts, as proposed by the Michigan DNR. This is the way public agencies recognize and protect all public interests in resource and recreational management. Furthermore, some people might be encouraged to use their ATVs as a primary method of transportation, to avoid costs such as vehicle registration and insurance. This would not encourage tourism, but would simply put uninsured, dangerous vehicles on roads for which they are not designed. In brief, HB 4323 is bad public policy written to provide convenience for the small, 3% minority of recreationists who own and ride ORVs, while ignoring the legitimate interests of the vast majority of people who do not own and run these intrusive and destructive machines. HB 4323 should be rejected by the Michigan Senate.

the point of house bill 4323. All this will do is give the power soley to the county to enact or not to enact ORV ordinances accordingto the wishes of the community township by township. Daniel R. Stewart

>So many have missed the point of house bill 4323. All this will do is give the power soley to the county to enact or not to enact ORV ordinances accordingto the wishes of the community township by township. Daniel R. Stewart< The Michigan Townships Association opposes HB 4323 precisely because it does not allow townships to decide to open or close roads to ORV traffic.

How is it that a vehicle that often weighs less than 500 pounds would tear up a road and existing trail more so than that of a full size vehicle? These roads and trails are already legal to travel with a pickup or any other licensed vehicle. So why should they not be able to be used by orv's? Last time I checked the same person who causes a problem with an orv illegally, could legally do it with a truck. So why not punish those people? Instead some think the answer is going after the people who want to enjoy the outdoors in lawful manner. Riding an orv on a trail does not cause the problem alone, it is the operator who determines the impact he or she is going to have on the environment they travel through. By allowing orv's on these trails legally you put more eyes and ears in the woods to deal with the trouble makers. HB4323 has provisions to put fine money into repairing the spots that are currently damaged. this is something that does not exist at this time. These funds would allow for the DNR or State to take care of troubled spots. These areas would not have a chance to be fixed without the funds that this Bill would create. Scott Brevik Redford, MI aka spazbrevik

"The problems are well documented." still waiting...

"But I don’t complain and whine about it" WHOAH!!!!

Sooooo close to the century mark--this is exciting! But one thing remains as sure and true as water is wet... [citation needed]

"Your “questioning” amounts to denial." Now don't be silly. Put up some refs. Come on, make us eat crow.

"a special privilege for the elite 3% minority" There's that appeal to class warfare again. A sure sign that somebody's grasping at straws. Funny, that line's usually followed closely by whining about "social conflict." Go figure.

"There is no good rationale.." We could, in theory, start with the concept of *liberty*. Unfortunately, I fear that would be as fruitful as lecturing the hassock about swimming pool maintenance.

Any activity that is louder, faster, or more expensive than my needlepoint and wildflower-picking must be severely curtailed. Only miscreants and snobs would operate ORVs, or engage in rowdy caffiene-fueled speed-macramé bashes, or what have you. Knowledgeable authorities are unanimous in this opinion. Hey, if you guys love your ORVs so much, then why don't you marry them?!

"current DNR management plan for ORVs" The DNR, being composed of a high percentage of statists (as expected of any government agency), would probably enforce a ban against walking on state forest land without a naturalist's license, if it thought it could get away with that.

What the hell is the Michigan Townships Association besides yet another excuse for government droids to party on the taxpayer's nickel? Is it any real surprise that some junior government club wants more power for the government?

"Further, we have seen that ORV damage to State Forest tracts has been so extensive that it has threatened the sustainable forestry practices certification of timber from those holdings. That means loss of market for timber harvested from State Forests" For some reason I am getting the feeling that you aren't really sincere in this particular gripe. Those who would caterwaul about the possibility of a tire track in the woods generally despise loggers, logging, and lumber (as knowledgeable experts have documented.) All those dozers, skidders, log trucks, chainsaws, those machines that snap off and strip a huge tree in one stroke, and even (gasp) ATVs that the timber harvesters use can create quite a mess of "noise, pollution, and torn-up ground."

orv opponent uses a tiller to 'create noise, tracks and torn up ground' in his garden?

"I also pay for a lot of stuff that does me no good personally, including the 3,100 miles of DNR maintained ORV trails in Michigan that are there for your enjoyment." Hey, these are paid for by ORV trail stickers!

My tax dollars help cover the cost of building and maintaining ORV trails, whether I use those trails or not. My tax dollars also are spent trying to police ORV recreation, without a whole lot of success. That's why literally opening the gate to expose more of northern Michigan to the noise, pollution, torn up ground, and problems with illegal use, trespass, litter, vandalism and social conflict that comes with ORVs running for fun is a bad idea. HB 4323 should be rejected by the Michigan Senate.

keep snowmobilers out of my house, but that didn't work either. i don't blame EVERY snowmobiler for what one drunken idiot did. but i CAN if you want me to.

This "ME TOO" opposition to an important and logical bill isn't winning any fans to the MTA. LET THE COUNTIES DECIDE IF ORVs ON THE SHOULDER IS GOOD OR BAD. That's ALL HB4323 accompishes if it passes. Big deal! Last fall I was riding with a friend who ended up breaking her arm in the middle of the trail loop far away from help. I rode...illegally... on the shoulder to a store to call for an ambulance. So I'm a "law breaker". Well clap me in irons and flog me in the town square! It would have been many painful miles via the legal route. Why is Mr. Wordsmith so damn afraid of letting local *elected* officials decide if trail head access and access to food, gas and help is a bad thing? Mr. Wordsmith (AKA: ad nauseum) also needs to be reminded--again--that there are already laws on the books to punish the types of illegal activities he alleges will ruin Michigan. There aren't any trees on the shoulder of the road to hug, pal. You should choose your fights more wisely. Guy

towards policing recreational drivers without much success either. let's rescind ALL DRIVER'S LICENSES, starting with YOURS.

Except a rude ORV fan has suggested rescinding anything, inlcuding anyone's driver's license or privilege to run an intrusive, destructive ORV. What is advocated is maintenance of the status quo as far as this bill is concerned and putting into play the DNR's smarter ORV policy, which calls for the development of access routes lin king trailheads, and linking trails to business centers. That presumably is what ORV riders have been clamoring for. HB 4323 goes way farther than that, and exposes much more land than is either necessary or desireable to the problems that run with ORVs. It is bad legislation that should be rejected by the Senate.

That in rural Michigan -- the kind of area that largely would be affected by passage of HB 4323, the level of government closest to the people is the township. Township officials tend to have a solid sense of what will best serve the interests of folks in their 36 or so square miles. That the Michigan Township Association opposes HB 4323 is telling. The opposition is based on the fact that through HB 4323 townships would be cut completely out of the loop in decision-making as to whether roads in their areas would be open to ORV traffic. In other words, HB 4323 is yet another big government proposal to centralize power over the people and eliminate local control.

>So many have missed the point of house bill 4323. All this will do is give the power soley to the county to enact or not to enact prohibitions on child-rearing accordingto the wishes of the community township by township. Daniel R. Stewart< The Michigan Townships Association opposes HB 4323 precisely because it does not allow townships to decide to open or close communities to child-rearing.

Local gummint is often more tyrannical than governments of larger scope, simply due to the lack of broad-based oversight on the activities of small, local Politburos. The oppression is often borne hardest by visitors to and travelers through local jurisdictions due to the lack of political standing of travelers and visitors. A small example is one of the few things things that P. R. Pennsylvania has done right: prohibition on radar speed enforcement by all LEO organisations but the state police. The problem was that Township officials often tended to have a solid sense that, say, a new free Senior Citizen's Center would best serve the interests of the folks in their 36 or so square miles, who would hopefully reciprocate and decide that the local Boss Hogg would get to retain political office for another four years. The requisite funding for the welfare project is raised rather painlessly (for the locals) by throwing up a 25 mph speed limit sign behind the bushes on the bend in the 55mph zone just inside the township line, and setting up Roscoe with his radar gun to rake in the dough. That a Michigan Townships Association even exists is telling, and that it would oppose the granting of some minor new freedom even more so. What we have is simply a claque of small local governments banding together to form a much larger pseudogovernment (and one which is less accountable and observable than its component parts) in order to battle a larger competitor over who gets to regulate and extract weal from the serfs. It is yet another little-government proposal to centralize power over the people and eliminate both competing government control and the general liberty. Fortunately, we can take heart in that rural folks tend to place a higher value on individual liberty, and conversely harbor more distrust and disgust of government at all levels, as compared to their urban counterparts (district-by-district voting patterns never fail to support this conclusion.) Thus, passage HB 4323 will be a small but welcome boon to country people and to country-minded city dwellers alike. The takeaway nugget of golden wisdom: Democracy is thirteen wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for dinner.